Climate Change

For a while it seemed like the public cared about global warming and wanted to reduce what humans are doing to unbalance the worldwide ecosystem. Now that’s not a certain thing and Al Gore is fighting to reverse the trend. Most of that shift in public opinion is due to some unethical behavior by people close to global warming data which created a breach of trust.

Add some powerful interests to the mix like businesses who don’t want to see new legislation interfere with their current operating practices, or politicians who stand to gain from related lobbyists and we have a magnifying glass on the underbelly of Al Gore’s global warming campaign. But where did it begin?

Global warming is a contentious issue again because skeptics have pointed out inconsistencies with the data scientists are using to measure how much humans are impacting the environment. Setting that debate aside for a moment, scientists have discovered that somewhere around 7 teragrams of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, has been released each year from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. That’s around 7.7 million tons of methane, and the data was aggregated from 5,000 locations. Sound credible?

In a situation like this the argument over who is causing global warming – man or nature – becomes almost irrelevant. It’s important for us to understand how that much greenhouse gas drifting into the atmosphere will affect the climate. Our ability to adapt or prevent that shift in climate may determine the next step in our collective bloodline.

Texas is making more noise about the threat of tougher emissions standards than a trampled rodeo clown.

The Lone Star state filed a petition in federal court this week, arguing the government has no right to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The message is loud and clear: Don’t mess with big business in Texas, or you’ll have a fight on your hand.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry says the regulations will sacrifice jobs and hurt the energy industry. According to the EPA, Texas and other Region 6 states are responsible for 35 percent of greenhouse gases emitted by industrial sources. But that doesn’t mean much in Texas.

Early on in his presidency, Obama looked like the anti-Bush when it comes to green issues. He pushed tougher vehicle emissions standards through and was hitting hard on climate change legislation.

Then reality struck. The health care debate slowed green negotiations and now Obama is tripling federal loan guarantees for nuclear reactors to $54 billion, while opening the door to off-shore drilling and more coal plants.

From the looks of things, his next move will be to buy a big ranch in Texas.

As you might expect, the reaction to Obama’s change of heart has been harsh from the environmental community that thought Bush’s replacement would turn the country toward renewable energies at a much faster pace.

The oldest trees on Earth are facing a life or death battle with climate change, possibly due to global warming. The giant redwood forests in California lay snug against the coast where a swath of fog keeps them moist periodically throughout the year. But, climate changes over the last century have reduced how likely it is that fog will form and now scientists are concerned that the redwoods may not survive.

Measurements taken recently captured the height of moisture-producing clouds and scientists meshed that data with recorded maximum temperature readings. Overall they discovered that fog is 33% less likely to form now than 100 years ago.

Jobs … health care … national debt … education … and … and … am I missing something?

In his 7,000 word State of the Union speech last night, President Obama mentioned the climate a mere three times. And each time, it was in passing.

To see the contrast, he mentioned business 30 times, jobs 23 times and health 14 times. Even education was verbalized five times.

He made sure to come out with strong new ideas on how to bring forth new jobs through tax incentives, create better schools through reforms, bring down the deficit through limits. But climate change? All it got was a hearty laugh.

When Obama said “I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change,” the room bubbled with laughter. While the president attempted to find the middle ground on a multitude of other issues, all he could do is acknowledge the great divide between believers and nonbelievers on climate change and move on.

Want to know more about global warming? Ask the people who get closest to the sun.

A new NASA report shows the 2000s were the warmest decade on record, further solidifying the scientific evidence in support of global warming. The study shows 2009 is tied for the second warmest year on record, but it was the hottest if you live in the Southern Hemisphere.

Temperatures have increased by about .36 degrees F per decade for the last three years, and the average global temperature is up 1.5 degrees since humans began measuring in 1880, according to the NASA report released this week.

In the days following the report, the global warming debate has raged on even with science showing obvious signs of melting glaciers and rising temperatures.

We shouldn’t be surprised when a major hurricane wreaks havoc on a defenseless nation like Haiti, just 700 miles off the coast of Florida.

Efforts to help Haiti, its people and its land are long, long overdue. This is this side of the world’s poorest nation, where 4 out of 5 people live in poverty.

Because of Haiti’s poverty, the people have had no choice but to strip the land of everything worth anything. Less than 100 years ago, most of Haiti was covered by forest. Now, it’s down to 2 percent original forest. So instead of a varied, healthy landscape, Haiti is a desert with exceptionally poor farmland.

If the nation’s most connected, respected environmental organizations can’t even agree on Copenhagen, how do countries around the world with centuries of politics stand a chance?

A more powerful statement would be if each of these powerful environmental groups came together with their own united front against climate change, showing the world it is in fact possible to agree.

Instead, we get a hodgepodge of opinions. It comes off as either a good cop, bad cop routine or worse yet, it looks like some of these leaders know what they’re talking about and others are clueless.

Deforestation is a huge problem in many countries rich in tropical forests but lacking in cash. Brazil is a great example where many local villagers sell lumber from the tropical forest on a regular basis to earn a living. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD) is a program meant to address that problem by paying local villagers to protect their forests. But how can REDD make intelligent decisions on where best to invest its money?

Google.org has decided to assist REDD and the world at large with its newly created tracking system that generates a heat map of activity where deforestation is occurring most intensely. It’s a conglomeration of software, satellite imagery and cloud computing – all of which are part of Google’s regular specialties.